Saturday, August 15, 2015

Iraq snapshot

Saturday, August 15, 2015. Chaos and violence continue, protests continue, protesters get attacked, Moqtada al-Sadr is among those calling out the attacks, the US government is offended by a bombing but not by the bombing of a maternity hospital, Hillary Clinton finally responds to Jeb Bush's charges, and much more.

Iraqi protesters
tore Khamenei pic in Baghdad yesterday
and said Iran get out from Iraq Down Iran muhalls
#Iraq

73 retweets25 favorites

Among those protesting?

NINA reports:Hundreds of Iraqi journalists took part in the grand mass march that
took place on Friday afternoon in al-Tahrir Square in central Baghdad,
departing from the headquarters of the Iraqi Journalists Syndicate.[. . .]
The correspondent pointed out that among the slogans filed by
demonstrators are slogans calling for the dissolution of parliament and
the prosecute of the corrupt.

#Iraqi protesters
in #Sweden yesterday
Against the corruption of the Iraqi Goverment

38 retweets14 favorites

Protests also continued today. Alsumaria reports in Basra, protests protested outside a Korean company Daewoo calling for jobs and 1 demonstrator was shot dead and another left injured apparently by employees of the Korean company.

In his latest column, As Sheik (Dar Addustur) calls out the "thug actions" of those attacking the protesers and decries the efforts of the state to use its resources to attack peaceful protesters who are only demanding their rights and an end to the continued theft of public money.

Today, former US Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, now seeking the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, finally responded herself to Jeb Bush's Tuesday charges that she and US President Barack Obama lost Iraq. BBC News reports:

On Saturday Ms Clinton responded by saying Mr Bush "should present the
entire picture. [That]... includes the agreement George W Bush made with
the Maliki government in Iraq that set the end of 2011 as the date to
withdraw American troops."

I think that, uh, what, uh, is being done with ISIS, uh, is very, uh, significant in terms of the support that the United States is now providing to the Iraqi army to retrain because of what Maliki did to, uh, really start to erode its abilities, to support the Kurds, to try to get the Sunnis back into, uh, the fight against ISIS. But this has to be an Iraqi-led mission and like anybody who has followed the horrific, barbaric behavior of ISIS, I, uh-uh, I am very committed to supporting the efforts within the region to take on the threat --

And we'll stop her there.

She never speaks of the need for political reconciliation. She never notes any grievances.

She just wants bombs and more bombs.

She's also either grossly uninformed or determined to be a liar.

We will again notes this week's attack on the Falluja maternity hospital.

The United States condemns in the strongest
terms both the ISIL attack this morning at a crowded market place in
Baghdad, and the car bomb attacks in Diyala Province on Monday, as well
as other recent terrorist attacks against the Iraqi people. We express
our deep condolences to family and friends of the victims. These
atrocities show once again the utter disregard ISIL has for innocent
civilians, including women and children.As Iraqis unite against ISIL and turn the tide on the battlefield,
ISIL will try to maintain its campaign of terror to sow discord among
the Iraqi people. The United States continues to stand shoulder to
shoulder with the Iraqi people as they confront ISIL and the violence it
represents. We remain committed to working with Prime Minister
Al-Abadi, the Iraqi Security Forces, and our partners in the
international community to support the Government of Iraq in defeating
ISIL and holding this terrorist organization accountable for the
atrocities it has committed.

Not one word about the maternity hospital bombing -- bombed by the Iraqi military.

Apparently, they were concerned infants would grow up to be terrorists?

When the US government cannot call out the bombing of a maternity hospital, they don't look like an honest or fair broker. They look like cheap liars that will embrace murder.

And more.

Stephanie Nebehay (Reuters) reported yesterday:A U.N. human rights watchdog called on Iraq
on Friday to close what it described as secret detention centres where
militant suspects, including minors, are "severely tortured".The
panel of 18 independent experts, who reviewed Iraq's record in
preventing torture and ill-treatment last month, had challenged Iraqi
officials to name a single person the country had jailed for torture in a
justice system that had "gone astray".In
its findings issued on Friday, the watchdog voiced concern at
information pointing to a pattern whereby militant and other
high-security suspects, including minors, were arrested without warrants
and detained in facilities - especially those run by the defence and
interior ministries.

There's a lot of pretending for Barack Obama to continue his support of the murderous regime governing Iraq today.

There's a lot of nonsense on Hillary's part when she can't call it out either.

But Hillary's all about the nonsense these days.

Former Florida governor Jeb Bush launched his 'attack' on Hillary earlier this week and she 'responded' by having Jake Sullivan speak for her because she's too much of an idiot to speak for herself apparently. She needed four days to respond to a Bush?

How stupid do you have to be to need more than five minutes to respond to a Bush?

In the long gap between Jeb's charge and Hillary's response, many weighed in.

So, President Bush reluctantly agreed to a withdrawal deadline
without leaving behind a residual force because of Maliki’s strong
objections. Jeb Bush ignores those facts.Still, Obama had three years to negotiate a new agreement prior to
the Dec. 31, 2011, withdrawal date to keep some U.S. troops in Iraq. In
fact, a day before Bush signed the agreement, Gen. Ray Odierno — the
former commander of the U.S. troops in Iraq and current Army chief of staff
— said the agreement might be renegotiated depending on conditions on
the ground. “Three years is a very long time,” Odierno told the New York Times. Leon Panetta, who was Obama’s defense secretary from July 2011 to February 2013, wrote in his 2014 book, “Worthy Fights,”
that as the deadline neared “it was clear to me — and many others —
that withdrawing all our forces would endanger the fragile stability” in
Iraq. As a result, the Obama administration sought to keep 5,000 to
10,000 U.S. combat troops in Iraq, as Sullivan said in his statement.But negotiations with Iraq broke down
in October 2011 over the issue of whether U.S. troops would be shielded
from criminal prosecution by Iraqi authorities. Panetta wrote that
Maliki insisted that a new agreement providing immunity to U.S. forces
“would have to be submitted to the Iraqi parliament for its approval,”
which Panetta said “made reaching agreement very difficult.”Very difficult, but Panetta wrote it was not impossible.

The Obama/Clinton defense rests on a thin reed of
claiming President George W. Bush agreed to an end date for America’s
presence in Iraq. This is misleading. The plan was to renegotiate an
extension based on the conditions on the ground. U.S. military advisors
believed a continued presence was necessary, and our Iraqi partners
desired such a presence even if their own politics complicated
negotiations to secure it. Our senior military leaders said that Iraqi
security forces were not prepared to succeed without continued U.S.
forces as the ISF needed continued enabling support and U.S. higher-end
intelligence for counter-terrorism targeting. Importantly, in October
2011 all but 40 members of Iraqi parliament voted in favor of a
continued U.S. military presence, but only the Kurds would openly
support the immunity requirements as framed by the administration.
Clearly this was a failure to engage early enough and with a commitment
to achieving a longer-term presence secure the hard fought gains made by
our military. Unfortunately, the Obama strategic team saw this only
through a domestic political lens, thinking that if Iraq spun out of
control they were immune politically and would just blame George Bush.

Securing this agreement was a task for diplomacy,
but the fact that Secretary Clinton visited Iraq exactly once during her
tenure suggests securing this agreement was not terribly high on her
agenda.

The right wing website Powerline offers excerpts from an interview Senator Lindsey Graham (vying for the Republican nomination for president in 2016) gave where he makes a point to put the blame on Barack and not Hillary:Lindsey Graham: I think it was our fault. The president got the
answer he wanted when it comes to troop levels. He wanted zero. He got
zero. He promised to end the War in Iraq. He actually lost the War in
Iraq. But this is something that most people don’t know. I want to make
sure you understand. Secretary Clinton called me to go over to Iraq to
talk to all the parties to see if we can find a way to achieve a
residual force to be left behind. I went with Senator McCain and Senator
Lieberman. We met with Mr. Allawi who’s is the Aratia party leader, the
former prime minister. He is a Shia, but it was a Sunni coalition. We
flew up to meet with President Barzani – not president – but Barzani,
the head of the Kurds. … Then we met with Maliki. So we had Ambassador Jeffrey – U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and Gen.
Austin, the commander of Iraq forces at the time in the meeting with me,
Maliki, and McCain. I asked Prime Minister Maliki, “Would you accept
troops?” He says, “If other will, I will.” Then he turned to me and
said, “How many troops are you talking about?” I turned to Gen. Austin
and then Ambassador Jeffrey – “What’s the answer to the prime minister’s
question?” Gen. Dreyfuss says, “We’re still working on the number.” The
number went from 18,000 recommended by Austin down to 3,000 coming out
of the White House. General Dempsey answered Senator McCain’s question and my question as
to how the numbers went down – “What is because the Iraqis suggest too
many?” He said, “No, the cascading numbers came from the White House.” I
was there. They were all ready to accept a residual force. But when you
get below 3,000, it was a joke. And we got the answer we wanted. I was
on the ground. I asked the question. I heard the answer from Gen. Austin
– the White House hasn’t made up their mind, yet.Hugh Hewitt: Jeb Bush is right. This is truly at the feet of Obama-Clinton.

Lindsey Graham: You know, Maliki has got a lot of blame for Iraq
falling apart, but I lay this at the foot of the President of the United
States solely. The Iraqis to a person would’ve accepted a residual
force, but he wanted to get to zero. He would never come forth with a
number. They never had a number.

Hillary was not over Iraq. That's the point Graham's making. She also wasn't on board with what Barack wanted to do regarding Barack (that's why she asked Graham and others to visit Iraq and speak to the politicians).

Moreover, I think the Republican
argument that a handful of American troops could have saved Iraq misses a
larger point. The fundamental problem was American policy—in
particular, the American policy of supporting and strengthening Maliki
at all costs. Maliki was a militant sectarian his whole life, and the
United States should not have been surprised when he continued to act
that way once he became Prime Minister. As Emma Sky, who served as a
senior adviser to the American military during the war in Iraq, put it,
“The problem was the policy, and the policy was to give unconditional
support to Nuri al-Maliki.” (Sky’s book, “The Unraveling,” is the
essential text on how everything fell apart.) When the Americans helped
install him, in 2006, he was a colorless mediocrity with deeply
sectarian views. By 2011, he was an unrivalled strongman with control
over a vast military and security apparatus. Who enabled that?

First,
it was the Bush White House. Then the Obama White House—Clinton was a
part of that team, of course, but the official with primary
responsibility for Iraq was Vice-President Joe Biden. Biden was a firm
backer of Maliki, because it was through Maliki that the Americans
seemed sure of an easy exit.

The real turning
point in Iraq came not in 2011, when the last American troops departed,
but in 2010, following national elections there. In the long deadlock
that followed the voting, American diplomats backed away, acquiescing to
an Iranian-brokered deal to allow Maliki to continue as Prime Minister.
The constitutionality of the deal was deeply suspect, but the Americans
averted their eyes. The Iranian price for backing Maliki was clear: he
would throw out the American troops. “We were so focussed on getting out
that we let the Iranians form the government,” Sky said.

Hillary took forever to respond to Jeb's charges which does not speak well of the campaign she's running. More importantly, she's gotten a pass for Sullivan's statement that Hillary believes the problem with the Iraq War includes that Bully Boy Bush did not send enough troops in.

War Hawk Hillary was not an action figure the American public wanted to buy in 2008 and it's doubtful they will in 2016. Willing to repeatedly remind the American voters that Hillary supported the war and voted for it in 2002 is Lincoln Chafee. William Petroski (Des Moines Register) reports:Former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee told Iowa State Fair goers
Saturday the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a mistake based on false
information and he’s proud he rejected the arguments of the nation’s
pro-war leaders.Chafee, who is seeking the Democratic nomination
for president, was a Republican serving in the U.S. Senate at the time.
He was the only Republican senator to vote against the use of military
force against Iraq. Advocates of the war argued force was needed to
protect the United States from further terrorist attacks after Sept. 11,
2001.“I did my homework and I went down to CIA and I found there
was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. It was all a hoax,”
Chafee said in remarks at The Des Moines Register’s Political Soapbox.

About Me

We do not open attachments. Stop e-mailing them. Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn't to the reporters at a certain paper (keep 'em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, "E-mails are supposed to be private." E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting.
This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That's not why the public account exists.